Hoax? - Apollo 12 Lunar Rendezvous, Dish Falls with Gravity

[najak]

He's also apparently missed the bloody point of this thread - the title - post 80 clearly shows that any diminishing movement is not changed as the LM rotates, well past the point it stops. It then yaws 180 degrees and the "loose" dish doesn't move a single bit.

Now why would anyone think gravity is in play when the movement shows no correlation with any of the position changes?

Does my document cover your objections adequately?  You've got page 8, "Apollogist Counter Argument #1".

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing

I'd like to reference you by username if you are OK with that.

[Mag40]

Does my document cover your objections adequately?  You've got page 8, "Apollogist Counter Argument #1".

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing

I'd like to reference you by username if you are OK with that.

Why don't you quit your "historical document" bollocks and admit the obvious - here? The dish shows no correlation movement with a rotating LM and stops during continued movement. It doesn't move at all during a full 180 yaw.

Your OP claim is a load of old baloney. A "smart physicist" would look at that footage and think it must be in an environment where gravity is NOT in effect.

[najak]

Why don't you quit your "historical document" bollocks and admit the obvious - here? The dish shows no correlation movement with a rotating LM and stops during continued movement. It doesn't move at all during a full 180 yaw.

Your OP claim is a load of old baloney. A "smart physicist" would look at that footage and think it must be in an environment where gravity is NOT in effect.

I'll state my stance ONE MORE TIME -- but this is just a REPEAT of stuff I've already said.  So we're beating a dead horse.

Pendulums do NOT run on momentum-- they run on the oscillation between stored/potential energy (from elevation) and kinetic energy (maximized at the bottom of the swing)...

So a slow rotation, doesn't mean that the dish, will stop the pendulum effect... So long as "down is relatively down" (and 15 degrees of rotation doesn't change this enough) -- gravity will continue to drive a pendulum activity -- even with a slow rotation.

The rotation may help to bring it to a stop quicker, but will not STOP it ...

What makes this a CLEAR pendulum is the REVERSAL OF DIRECTION BEFORE IT REACHES THE EXTREME HINGE CONSTRAINT.

The first couple bounces reflect off of this hinge-constraint...  the next 7 oscillations DO NOT.  This dish changes direction BEFORE reaching the constraint?  What causes it to keep swinging back and forth without a rebound off of the constraint?

If gravity were present, THIS would explain this motion entirely.

Without gravity, what is a viable explanation for these motion reversals???  No viable explanations have been presented yet.

At the very end, after oscillation #9 - the oscillation suddenly STOPS/STICKS...  You will see NO MORE PIXEL OSCILLATIONS after that... it's sudden, but small. 

Why did it suddenly stop at the very end?   Unsure.    We both have viable explanations for how it suddenly became "rigidly held in place", and I do not claim otherwise.

So this "sticking" explains why it doesn't move freely after that.

Here's the video close-up for reference.   I suggest downloading it, and viewing in Media Player for a good view.  The "stoppage" occurs right at about 11.7 seconds...   before that it was moving according to a decaying pendulum.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ta2jL43_1NLGuCjDJg8VkfkbbVhkkNXz/view?usp=drive_link

I get that you don't like my explanation - so write up the rebuttal you want to be included in the document, and I'll paste it in.

There's no point to you and I continuing this repetition.  Agree to Disagree.  We disagree -- that's to be expected.   This doesn't mean one of us is being disingenuous.

[Miss Vocalcord]

What makes this a CLEAR pendulum is the REVERSAL OF DIRECTION BEFORE IT REACHES THE EXTREME HINGE CONSTRAINT.

How do you know this, can you look inside the mechanism of the disc?

We both have viable explanations for how it suddenly became "rigidly held in place", and I do not claim otherwise.

In your theory they must have build in 2 separate 'stop' mechanisms which they enabled when the 'string' snapped; So they knew the string could snap and build in all these mechanisms to catch it, instead of simply redoing the image; again there is no logic in your story.

[najak]

#1: How do you know this, can you look inside the mechanism of the disc?
#2: In your theory they must have build in 2 separate 'stop' mechanisms which they enabled when the 'string' snapped;

#1: we can witness the VERY FAST REBOUNDING for the first 2 bounces -- they are actual "Bounces" indicated by an IMMEDIATE CHANGE IN DIRECTION.
Then it begins to operate like a pendulum... before each reversal there was a deceleration then acceleration... it slowed down, stopped, then reversed.
We can see this clearly from the video.

#2: In my theory, the "guide wire" was "makeshift" to try and fix what they forgot to do from Apollo 11 (which was to have it track earth at all).
So this model wasn't just cheap plastic -- it could have been a real AM... or a model with some mechanisms inside.  Perhaps the ONLY thing they had on this armature was an electronic "brake" of some sort... that just "held in in place".   
They didn't think up this "guide wire" technique until Apollo 12, yet still used the same module as Apollo 11.

===
My hypothesis is that NASAX was largely a Military-run operation...  the leadership were military leaders, not engineers.   So when mistakes were made, they had a schedule -maybe running behind and so for many mistakes said "that's good enough; no one will notice" -- and "if they do - people won't let them poop on the parade"...     And they were right..   These mistakes were kept, not fixed - and it made NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.  Everyone believed it just the same.

Similar to how Christians will overlook the 91+ times of genocide commanded by Moses then Joshua, as they proclaim Yahweh to be All Loving and opposed to baby slaughter.    They overlook whatever nuances stand in their way, to hold to the beliefs that serve them.   Apollo has always behaved much like a religion.  I don't blame people for this -- it's how we're wired.  I think it's good to realize this, as you assess reality though.

[Miss Vocalcord]

#1: we can witness the VERY FAST REBOUNDING for the first 2 bounces -- they are actual "Bounces" indicated by an IMMEDIATE CHANGE IN DIRECTION.
Then it begins to operate like a pendulum... before each reversal there was a deceleration then acceleration... it slowed down, stopped, then reversed.
We can see this clearly from the video.

The first 2 "bounces" are on a different axis as the other, and all of this can be simply be the motor controller dealing with it. No need for gravity.

You hypothesis  simply doesn't hold; According to you all the people involved knew they were making something that didn't work
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19650025875/downloads/19650025875.pdf

[TimberWolfAu]

#2: In my theory, the "guide wire" was "makeshift" to try and fix what they forgot to do from Apollo 11 (which was to have it track earth at all).
So this model wasn't just cheap plastic -- it could have been a real AM... or a model with some mechanisms inside.  Perhaps the ONLY thing they had on this armature was an electronic "brake" of some sort... that just "held in in place".   
They didn't think up this "guide wire" technique until Apollo 12, yet still used the same module as Apollo 11.

===
My hypothesis is that NASAX was largely a Military-run operation...  the leadership were military leaders, not engineers.   So when mistakes were made, they had a schedule -maybe running behind and so for many mistakes said "that's good enough; no one will notice" -- and "if they do - people won't let them poop on the parade"...     And they were right..   These mistakes were kept, not fixed - and it made NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.  Everyone believed it just the same.

Still waiting for a single piece of evidence to support any of those claims there.

[najak]

#1: The first 2 "bounces" are on a different axis as the other, and all of this can be simply be the motor controller dealing with it. No need for gravity.
#2: You hypothesis  simply doesn't hold; According to you all the people involved knew they were making something that didn't work

#1: The motor controller was clearly active before it snapped/flung wildly (for a couple bounces), not at all like the fine tuned motor control.  None of this motion after the fling: (a) matched the type of rigid motion this motor was doing or designed to do, and (b) this flinging off target, would make no sense.   This dish was the primary means for communication with MSFN, with more than 100x the SNR (dB gain) of the Omni antenna.   The behavior here - makes zero sense to their mission.  If it failed, why not mention it failing and switching over to backup antenna?  Instead Bean simply says, within a few seconds afterward, "my antenna is OK".  No failures mentioned anywhere in their transcript or journal or Debrief.

#2: The MLH theory is that 99.9% of NASA was operating under the presumption that it was ALL real... doing their work as though it were all real, and believed it.  This could make for a good new thread, the MLH theory of NASAX, and the compartmentalization of NASA as a whole.   I worked in such an environment for Lockheed for 4 years, writing Sonar Signal Processing algorithms for the Seawolf Submarine.   After my work "passed component testing" it was sent on to Integration testing, and then onto System Testing then to Field Testing..   But I saw NONE OF IT... I didn't even know who was on those teams, or which room they worked in.   If Seawolf Submarine was partially dysfunctional -- I would have had no clue.    It was a matter of National Security that groups NOT talk to each other -- Need to Know Basis was a strict serious rule.

[Mag40]

#1: The motor controller was clearly active before it snapped/flung wildly (for a couple bounces), not at all like the fine tuned motor control.  None of this motion after the fling: (a) matched the type of rigid motion this motor was doing or designed to do, and (b) this flinging off target, would make no sense.   This dish was the primary means for communication with MSFN, with more than 100x the SNR (dB gain) of the Omni antenna.   The behavior here - makes zero sense to their mission.  If it failed, why not mention it failing and switching over to backup antenna?  Instead Bean simply says, within a few seconds afterward, "my antenna is OK".  No failures mentioned anywhere in their transcript or journal or Debrief.

It's as if you can't actually read properly or see things properly. Shortly after, the astronauts threw this great big machine away. What you interpret as the motion you think it matched, means nothing. It stopped completely after wobbling, even when the LM carried on moving.

Once again your claim doesn't match the visual account and the absence of LM correlated motion prove that it cannot be down to gravity.

[Miss Vocalcord]

Once again your claim doesn't match the visual account and the absence of LM correlated motion prove that it cannot be down to gravity.

yes it requires him a person to pull a string and another one to pull the brakes one the s-band antenna when the string would snap. They were really prepared at NASA.

[najak]

Still waiting for a single piece of evidence to support any of those claims there.

That's not evidence that will ever be available, unless Buzz Aldrin spills the beans before he dies.  They made a lot of small (but provable) mess-ups with Physics - but they weren't dumb enough to leave a huge gaping paper trail.

The basis of the MLH argument is to produce a "List of things that NASA Claimed which was impossible".  e.g. Apollo cannot break physics.

If you see a VIDEO of a man chopping a woman in half, then just squeezes her back together...  you are allowed to say "I don't believe that this footage is genuine" even if you cannot prove HOW he actually pulled off this illusion.   The evidence of him doing something IMPOSSIBLE can justify your disbelief.

So if you hypothesize, "I think he used mirrors", someone can't rightfully say "that's stupid, because YOU CANNOT PROVE HE USED MIRRORS, therefore your conclusion is stupid and unfounded."  You are justified to disbelieve the footage based upon the occurrence of something that is provably not possible, or a series of occurrences that are extremely unlikely.

[Miss Vocalcord]

#1: The motor controller was clearly active before it snapped/flung wildly (for a couple bounces), not at all like the fine tuned motor control.

Please tell me how the motor control worked....

#2: The MLH theory is that 99.9% of NASA was operating under the presumption that it was ALL real... doing their work as though it were all real, and believed it.

So how much of the steerable S-band antenna did work? Wat it motor controlled, could it be used in automatic mode. Was it capable of doing the communications?
For just this small part to fake you already needed hundreds of people involved.

[najak]

yes it requires him a person to pull a string and another one to pull the brakes one the s-band antenna when the string would snap. They were really prepared at NASA.

In my hypothesis, the guide wire was simply attached some where to create the effect of Tracking.   No one was at the other end. 

For Apollogist theory and mine - there was a loosely wobbling antenna that "stiffened up".  Neither of us knows why it stiffened up... but stiff it became.  Which explains why it became motionless after that.

The motion prior to stiffening, emulated a pendulum motion -- reversing directions after deceleration, and before reaching the hinge limits.

[Mag40]

They made a lot of small (but provable) mess-ups with Physics - but they weren't dumb enough to leave a huge gaping paper trail.

You have demonstrated ineptitude with Newtonian physics and your claimed "mess-ups" are mainly down to your baseless opinions.

The basis of the MLH argument is to produce a "List of things that NASA Claimed which was impossible".  e.g. Apollo cannot break physics.

A list so far that has no entries.

If you see a VIDEO of a man chopping a woman in half, then just squeezes her back together...  you are allowed to say "I don't believe that this footage is genuine" even if you cannot prove HOW he actually pulled off this illusion.   The evidence of him doing something IMPOSSIBLE can justify your disbelief.

Did he really just spam the magician analogy again?

[najak]

#1: Please tell me how the motor control worked....
#2: So how much of the steerable S-band antenna did work? Wat it motor controlled, could it be used in automatic mode. Was it capable of doing the communications?
For just this small part to fake you already needed hundreds of people involved.

#1: The other motions we witness from this motor are expected --relatively slow and stiff movements, consistent with a servo-motor.  High fidelity steady motion.
#2: I have no idea if this was a partially functional model, or a full-sized real model.  Or somewhere in between.

What I do know is that the side-to-side motion matches a pendulum motion...  and as of yet, I've heard no reasonable explanations how this behavior could have happened in no gravity.

It is not required for me to know the "how did they fake this", to make an observation that "this pendulum behavior makes no sense without gravity."